Glenn Beck v. Ida May Fuller

Perhaps Beck’s rant will have some appeal to rabid right-wing ideologues that resent old folks drawing a pension after their retirement from the workforce, but it’s difficult to see who else might find his crackpot argument all that compelling.

“Aunt Ida” was something of a statistical anomaly, by the way. She retired in January 1940 at age 65 but lived to be 100 years old, dying in 1975. In 1940 the average remaining life expectancy for those surviving to age 65 was less than 15 years. What’s perhaps even more interesting is the fact that Ms. Fuller’s payroll deductions at the time of her employment were a measly 1 percent!

Like this:

Related

21 Replies to “Glenn Beck v. Ida May Fuller”

When I was in *gasp* Bible College, this kind of argument was called “proof-texting” – that is, finding some obscure verse and using it to form a theology, despite the preponderance of material that contradicted it. Narrow-minded and logically just plain wrong. Ida May was an anomaly. If she had been the only recipient, or one of many examples like her, maybe there would be an argument; but obviously, the Foxman didn’t want to admit that. Unfortunately, there are people who actually think he’s being reasonable.

I agree with Shiner. The last group that the GOP and this douchebag Beck want to piss off is the old folks. The AARP will butcher both of them.

I might be biased here, but my parents worked their asses off for decades and deserve the pensions they get from CPP and Old Age Security. ignoring the fact that every year they still have to pay 10% tax on that income, they deserve every penny of it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the teabaggers; throw old folks under the bus to attack the Dems

I don’t know how you can watch that buffoon. After a minute, I shut if off. The nerve of that cocksucker, earning millions a year to cavort on camera like an adolescent to argue (dishonestly, we should add) about the economics of social security.

But I too hope the hard Right runs with this attack on Medicare and Social Security.

It may not be as counter-productive as you think. Remember the seniors who wanted the government’s hands off their Medicare? I’m sure they could find a way to get seniors to support doing away with Social Security.

Ti-Guy — That would require a profound level of cynicism that escapes even me. 😉

But given the Right’s enormous success over the last 30 yrs. or so in sucking people into consistently voting against their own self-interest it’s not inconceivable that such a deceit could be foisted on them.

Ti-Guy — That would require a profound level of cynicism that escapes even me. 😉

It escaped me. When I wrote that comment, I was trying to think of a way they could do it, but I was stymied. I think it requires an intellectual and emotional state that is entirely alien to me (and all sensible people).

It is quite possible that with an aging population supported by fewer and fewer younger workers (a sizable demographic of which, the tail-end of the baby boom/Gen X’ers now entering their prime earning years) the Right has calculated that the seniors are now expendable. But who knows? Maybe I’m just intent on making sure I don’t end up surprised by the next shocking and appalling dodge the Right manages to devise.

I think the younger demographic of Americans has a better case for arguing that perhaps the retiring boomers need to be cut loose, finally. Remember, that demographic has been divided since the late 50’s and at least half of them have worked to destroy the social programs they benefited from as soon as they passed through them. They have resisted any increase in taxation as revenues became insufficient to support them (indeed, they supported tax cuts), thus burdening a younger generation with an even bigger debt of unfunded entitlement programs well into the future.

The social contract in Canada as been much better managed. As well, many of the entitlement programs seniors benefit from here are available to everyone, the major one being health care of course.

I have little sympathy for Boomers. Their evolution has been characterized throughout the last 40 yrs. by grotesque over-indulgence, inane stupidity, and selfish narcissism. I wish they’d all jump off a cliff and rid us of their odious presence.

I’ll just add that when that demographic bulge moved through its various stages of life, everything became hideous theatre which everyone else had to pay attention to.

Vietnam when they were blossoming into adulthood. The failed opportunity to chart a different course during the Carter administration because they were exhausted by all the drugs and the consequence-free sex of the 60’s and 70’s. The Reagan Revolution as they settled down into child-rearing and budding career years full of naked and cut-throat ambition. The academic and culture/political wars when they entered the 90’s and their peak earning years. And finally, the millennium, 9/11, environmental ruin and economic collapse providing a suitably dramatic setting for the only generation that ever mattered and ever will matter to prepare to exclaim triumphantly at the end of the final act: Après nous, le déluge!

How about getting rid of all the drunks, lay abouts and druggies…push them over the cliff. That would save the country don’t you think. Imagine pushing your uncles, aunts, mothers and fathers over the cliff in their old age….oh! and by the way…what do you consider to be OLD???

Petiful…just petiful. There are people who take care of themselves well into their nineties. I had an aunt who was still swimming three times a week at 98. You cannot put people into your catagory…nor do you have the RIGHT!!